<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Jamie Dimon makes the best case for not breaking up banks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/11/jamie-dimon-makes-the-best-case-for-not-breaking-up-banks.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/11/jamie-dimon-makes-the-best-case-for-not-breaking-up-banks.html</link>
	<description>Finance, Economics and Markets</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:37:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Edward Harrison</title>
		<link>http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/11/jamie-dimon-makes-the-best-case-for-not-breaking-up-banks.html#comment-57598</link>
		<dc:creator>Edward Harrison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/11/jamie-dimon-makes-the-best-case-for-not-breaking-up-banks.html#comment-57598</guid>
		<description>I agree with your sentiments. I have added this at the end of the post:

Disclosure: I have no financial interest in any financial services companies. Further, I have said previously that I do not favor re-imposing Glass-Steagall as a magic bullet solution given that most financial carnage over the past twenty-five years has originated in the regulated commercial bank sector. Like Dimon and Bair, I see a robust regulatory regime as critical. On the other hand, I am generally in favor of reducing bank size, unlike Dimon.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with your sentiments. I have added this at the end of the post:</p>
<p>Disclosure: I have no financial interest in any financial services companies. Further, I have said previously that I do not favor re-imposing Glass-Steagall as a magic bullet solution given that most financial carnage over the past twenty-five years has originated in the regulated commercial bank sector. Like Dimon and Bair, I see a robust regulatory regime as critical. On the other hand, I am generally in favor of reducing bank size, unlike Dimon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terry</title>
		<link>http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/11/jamie-dimon-makes-the-best-case-for-not-breaking-up-banks.html#comment-57597</link>
		<dc:creator>Terry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/11/jamie-dimon-makes-the-best-case-for-not-breaking-up-banks.html#comment-57597</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure why we should put all our faith in a single solution to the TBTF problerm; in this case, a robust resolution process.  The problem these banks pose for the US and world economy is too big for a single type of fix.  It, in fact, creates a single point of failure.

A more robust solution would incorporate multiple tools to prevent and painlessly resolve large bank failures.  

First, split the TBTF &quot;banks&quot; into two institutions--real lending/savings banks and capital investment/trading companies.  Protect depositors in the former; don&#039;t protect investors in the latter.  

Second, to the extent then that true TBTF bank exist, split them into non-threatening pieces by any of a number of criteria (geography, deposit base, etc.)

Third, tighten regulations on the banks, including capital requirements, and massively expand transparency on investment/trading houses--and the Fed.  Expand federal (FDIC, Fed, SEC) auditing authority on all, 

Fourth, establish robust resolution procedures per Dimon &amp; others.

In the end, these could all fail, but the chances that they would prevent or quickly &amp; less painfully rectify a financial crisis are much better than relying on resolution to solve the problem.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure why we should put all our faith in a single solution to the TBTF problerm; in this case, a robust resolution process.  The problem these banks pose for the US and world economy is too big for a single type of fix.  It, in fact, creates a single point of failure.</p>
<p>A more robust solution would incorporate multiple tools to prevent and painlessly resolve large bank failures.  </p>
<p>First, split the TBTF &#8220;banks&#8221; into two institutions&#8211;real lending/savings banks and capital investment/trading companies.  Protect depositors in the former; don&#8217;t protect investors in the latter.  </p>
<p>Second, to the extent then that true TBTF bank exist, split them into non-threatening pieces by any of a number of criteria (geography, deposit base, etc.)</p>
<p>Third, tighten regulations on the banks, including capital requirements, and massively expand transparency on investment/trading houses&#8211;and the Fed.  Expand federal (FDIC, Fed, SEC) auditing authority on all, </p>
<p>Fourth, establish robust resolution procedures per Dimon &amp; others.</p>
<p>In the end, these could all fail, but the chances that they would prevent or quickly &amp; less painfully rectify a financial crisis are much better than relying on resolution to solve the problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/11/jamie-dimon-makes-the-best-case-for-not-breaking-up-banks.html#comment-57596</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/11/jamie-dimon-makes-the-best-case-for-not-breaking-up-banks.html#comment-57596</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;Jamie Dimon. It is clear that Dimon believes JPMorgan Chase was never in any real jeopardy during the financial crisis.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Table 3: $87,000,000,000,000.00 (87 trillion) in off balance sheet derivatives.  http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2009-34a.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>&#8220;Jamie Dimon. It is clear that Dimon believes JPMorgan Chase was never in any real jeopardy during the financial crisis.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Table 3: $87,000,000,000,000.00 (87 trillion) in off balance sheet derivatives.  <a href="http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2009-34a.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2009-34a.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/11/jamie-dimon-makes-the-best-case-for-not-breaking-up-banks.html/feed ) in 0.12614 seconds, on Feb 10th, 2012 at 6:09 am UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on Feb 10th, 2012 at 7:09 am UTC -->
